These EMCs are not a Deprivation of Liberty
These EMCs are not a Deprivation of Liberty
This case is not about Article 26/624. It is not about detention. It is not about deprivation of liberty. The CJEU ruled in JZ that even the 9 hour EMC which featured in that case could not meet the “autonomous” Article 26/624 test of constituting a “deprivation of liberty” and thus “detention” (JZ at §54). Nor can the 5 hour EMC in the present case. Nor could 5½ hour EMC in A. Nor could the 5 hour EMC in Doga. Nor could the EMC arrangements with which the French appellate courts were concerned in the 28 March 2023 judgment of the French Supreme Court. None of those EMCs were a deprivation of liberty.
- Heading
- FORDHAM J
- PART 2. THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT
- Qualifying Curfew in UK and French Domestic Law
- Four Components
- A and Doga
- Expert Evidence and the Chance to Respond
- Further Information and a Reply
- Background
- Evidence Ventilated in Previous Cases
- A Sole Viable Point
- The Article 26/624 Mechanism
- Deprivation of Liberty
- Article 716-4 of the French Code
- “Detention” and ‘Exclusive Competence’ of the IJA
- Responsibilities of the EJA
- These EMCs are not a Deprivation of Liberty
- Restriction of Liberty
- Article 142-11 of the French Code
- The French Appellate Courts
- The French Supreme Court’s Review Role
- Qualifying Curfew and ‘Exclusive Competence’ of the IJA
- EMHA is an Evaluative Question
- Article 142-11 is a Duty
- Very Clear Cut
- The Evidence
- This Case
- Conclusion
- PART 3. THE RESPONDENT’S REQUEST
- Andrysiewicz
- The Request
- Injustice
- Very Clear-Cut
- Conclusions
![AC-2023-LON-001921 - [2025] EWHC 1416 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)